Additional Cavity Shaving at the Time of Breast-Conserving Surgery Enhances Accuracy of Margin Status Examination

How Can Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Contribute to the Management of Locally Advanced Breast Cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa?

Background

Because of resource constrains in sub-Saharan African countries, breast-conserving surgery (BCS) has no role in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), and mastectomy remains the standard surgical treatment for these patients.

Objectives

The first objective of the study was to assess the safety of oncoplastic BCS in patients with LABC who showed good clinical response to NACT in a breast center with enhanced level of resources in Sudan. The second objective was to assess the cosmetic outcome.

Patients and Methods

Two hundred and fifty patients with LABC were treated with NACT at Khartoum Breast Care Center during the period 2013-2019. Out of this, 52 patients were surgically treated with oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery. Kaplan-Meier curve was used to calculate the survival rates. The cosmetic outcome was subjectively assessed by the Harris scale.

Results

The median follow-up period was 53 months. The 3- and 5-years distant metastasis-free survival rates were 92.9% and 82.2%, respectively. One patient developed regional recurrence, and 6 patients developed distant metastasis. Eighty percentage of patients were admitted to have good to excellent cosmetic outcome.

Conclusion

This Sudanese experience showed that oncoplastic BCS is oncologically safe and aesthetically satisfactory in patients with LABC who demonstrated good clinical response to NACT in a setting with enhanced levels of resources for breast cancer care.

Does cavity margin shaving reduce residual tumor and re-excision rates? A systematic review

PURPOSE

Cavity shaving (CS) is a surgical technique used in the treatment of breast cancer (BC). It may reduce margin positivity in histologic assessment and consequently reduces re- excision rates in breast conserving surgery (BCS). The evidence for this assumption is described in the present review.

METHODS

A systematic review of relevant literature in English from January 1999 to April 2019 was conducted. The analysis included studies on CS and its effects on re-excision rates and margin positivity. We searched PubMed databases for relevant publications. In total, 22 studies were included in the present review.

RESULTS

The benefit from CS on re-excision rates and histologic margin positivity was variable. Out of 22 studies, 17 reported a reduction in both re-excision rates and histologic margin positivity in margin shaved patients. Four studies could not find a significant reduction of second surgeries and residual tumor rates. One study suggested that CS after BCS was superior to single BCS only in subgroup analysis in IDC tumors.

CONCLUSION

CS is a surgical technique that was shown to reduce re-excision and margin positivity rates in most of the studies. Furthermore, it can be a useful tool to assess specimen margins and detect multifocality.

Impact of cavity shaving on residual tumor rates in patients with primary invasive carcinoma and carcinoma in situ in breast conserving surgery

Background

Several international studies reported relatively high re-excision rates due to residual tumor in breast conserving surgery (BCS). Cavity shaving (CS) is a surgical strategy to reduce re-excision rates. This study aimed to investigate the effect of circumferential cavity shaving during BCS to reduce residual tumor.

Material and Methods

A total of 591 patients with early invasive carcinoma or carcinoma in situ of the breast (ICD-10, C50 or D05) who were diagnosed between 01/01/2017 and 31/12/2019 and underwent BCS in a certified breast cancer center of the University Regensburg were analyzed regarding surgical excision methods. Patients with CS during BCS and patients with targeted re-excision in a specific direction depending on the result of intraoperative mammography or sonography during BCS were compared. The risk of pathologic residual tumor (R1) was compared between both groups by means of a multivariable binary logistic regression model to determine if there is a benefit of a certain surgical method to avoid a second intervention for re-excision. We adjusted for age, tumor size, nodal status, histologic type, surgeon, breast side, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Results

80 (n = 13.54%) patients had CS and 511 (n = 86.46%) had a targeted re-excision in a specific direction during BCS according to intraoperative mammography or sonography. After comparing both techniques in a multivariable regression model, there was no significant difference regarding risk of residual tumor (p = 0.738) in the total cohort. However, CS showed a tendency to be favorable regarding rates of residual tumor in patients with invasive breast cancer between 60 and 70 years (p = 0.072) and smaller T1-tumors (p = 0.057) compared to targeted intraoperative re-excision following mammographic or sonographic assessment.

Conclusion

CS showed a tendency to reduce residual tumor compared to the standard technique of intraoperative re-excision in specific subgroups, although no statistical significance was reached. Further studies are needed to overcome potential limitations like surgeon-based bias and missing standardized definitions of CS to reduce residual tumor rates.

Diagnostic Value of Intraoperative Frozen Section in Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Context: According to previous studies, using the frozen section procedure during breast surgery reduces the rate of error and the need for re-surgery. We aimed at performing a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to provide reliable evidence on the diagnostic value of frozen section procedures in breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Data Sources: A thorough search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for human diagnostic studies that used the frozen section in BCS. Meta-analyses were done to find the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR). Study Selection: Human diagnostic studies used the frozen section in breast-conserving surgery and studies that reported the sensitivity and specificity of the frozen section in BCS or contained data that could be calculated the desired parameters were selected for this meta-analysis. Data Extraction: Assessment of studies quality was done and data was extracted from included papers. Then, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the quality of included papers. Results: Thirty-five papers were entered into our study. The meta-analysis indicated the high sensitivity (83.47, 95%CI 79.61 - 87.32) and specificity (99.29, 95%CI 98.89 - 99.68) for the frozen section in BCS, which resulted in an accuracy of 93.77 (95%CI 92.45 - 95.10). We also found a significant PPV (93.26, 95%CI 91.25 - 95.27), NPV (92.17, 95%CI 90.22 - 94.11), PLR (7.99, 95%CI 6.01 - 9.96), and NLR (0.18, 95%CI 0.14 - 0.23). Conclusions: The findings showed that intraoperative frozen section analysis has high sensitivity and specificity for evaluating lumpectomy margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer and significantly reduces the need for re-operation. Accordingly, re-operation costs are not imposed on the patient and reduce the anxiety of the patients.

Cavity shaving for invasive breast cancer conservative surgery: Reduced specimen volume and margin positive rates

INTRODUCTION

The cavity shaving (CS) technique was described in breast conserving surgery to reduce the rate of reoperation avoiding the need for intraoperative margin analysis. This study assesses differences in the rates of involvement of the surgical margin (requiring further surgery) and volume of surgical specimens, depending on the use or not of this technique.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients with breast carcinoma who underwent breast conserving surgery between 2013 and 2019. They were divided into two groups depending on whether the cavity shaving technique was used or not. Primary outcomes of the study included presence of final margin involvement, requiring need for further surgery, and the volume of excised tissue comparing the study groups.

RESULTS

A total of 202 cases were included: 92 in the control group and 110 in the cavity shaving group. Significant differences were found regarding involvement of the final margin (19.57% control group vs. 4.55% cavity shaving group; p = 0.010). The volume of additional surgical specimens were significantly greater in the traditional technique group than in the shaving technique (46.43 vs 13.32 cm³; p = 0.01) as was total specimen volume (143.40 vs 100.63 cm³; p = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

CS can reduce the positive margin and re-excision rates without larger-volume resections and should therefore be considered a routine technique in BCS for early-stage breast cancer.

Reoperation rate after breast conserving surgery as quality indicator in breast cancer treatment: A reappraisal

Aim

To analyse the role of repeated breast surgery (RBS) after breast conserving surgery (BCS) as a quality indicator in a consecutive series of breast cancer patients.

Methods

Data from 1233 breast cancer patients submitted to BCS from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. The influence of several variables on RBS rate (182/1232; 14.8%) was examined. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to look for significant associations with the risk of RBS.

Results

Surgical workload, BCS rate and clinicopathological variables were consistent over the study period, while RBS rate decreased after the introduction of shaving of cavity margins (from 17.9% to 9.5%). Tumor persistence at RBS was higher for mastectomy vs. re-excision (87.3% vs. 37.8%; p = 0.05), inconclusive vs. positive diagnostic biopsy (48.2% vs. 69.4%; p = 0.003), ductal carcinoma in situ vs. invasive carcinoma (69.0% vs. 51.3%; p = 0.046) and lower after neoadjuvant therapy (14.3% vs. 57.8%; p = 0.044). Several clinicopathological variables were associated with the risk of RBS, but only multifocality [Odds Ratio (OR): 1.8; p = 0.009], microcalcifications (OR: 2.0, p = 0.000), neoadjuvant therapy (OR: 0.4; p = 0.014), pathological intraoperative assessment (OR: 0.6; p = 0.010) and shaving of cavity margins (OR: 0.3; p = 0.000) retained independent value at multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

RBS rate can be reduced by shaving of cavity margins. Current standards for RBS should not be made more stringent due to the existence of non-actionable risk factors. The value of RBS as a quality indicator should be scrutinzed.

•

Some breast cancer patients need a reoperation for incomplete tumor excision after breast conserving surgery.

•

Reoperation rates show wide variations (10%–50%) among different Countries.

•

Shaving of cavity margins may reduce the reoperation rate, but non-invasive and multicentric lesiona are non-actionable risk factors

•

The value of reoperation rate as a quality indicator of breast cancer surgery is questionable.

A comparative study of perioperative techniques to attain negative margins and spare healthy breast tissue in breast conserving surgery

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Traditionally lumpectomy as a part of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is performed by palpation-guided method leading to positive margins and large excision volumes. There is no evidence suggesting that wide margin excisions decrease intra-breast tumour recurrence. Various perioperative techniques are used for margin assessment. We aimed to compare three commonly used techniques, i.e., ultrasound-guided surgery, palpation-guided surgery and cavity shaving for attaining negative margins and estimating the extent of healthy breast tissue resection.

METHOD

A prospective comparative study was performed on 90 patients who underwent breast conservation surgery for early breast cancer between August 2018 and June 2019. Tumour excision with a minimum of 1 cm margin was done either using ultrasound, palpation or cavity shaving. Histopathological evaluation was done to assess the margin status and excess amount of resected normal breast tissue. Calculated resection ratio (CRR) defining the excess amount of the resected breast tissue was achieved by dividing the total resection volume (TRV) by optimal resection volume (ORV). The time taken for excision was also recorded.

RESULTS

Histopathology of all 90 patients (30 in each group) revealed a negative resection margin in 93.3% of 30 patients in palpation-guided surgery group and 100% in both ultrasound-guided surgery and cavity shaving groups. Two patients (6.7%) from the cavity shaving group had positive margins on initial lumpectomy but shave margins were negative. TRV was significantly less in the ultrasound-guided surgery group compared to the palpation-guided surgery group and cavity shaving group (76.9 cm3, 94.7 cm3 and 126.3 cm3 respectively; p < 0.0051). CRR was 1.2 in ultrasound group compared to 1.9 in palpation group and 2.1 in cavity shave group which was also statistically significant (p < 0.0001).Excision time was significantly less (p < 0.001) in palpation-guided surgery group (13.8 min) compared to cavity shaving group (15.1 min) and ultrasound-guided group (19.4 min).

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound-guided surgery is more accurate in attaining negative margins with the removal of least amount of healthy breast tissue compared to palpation-guided surgery and cavity shaving.

Long-Term Outcomes of Immunohistochemically Defined Subtypes of Breast Cancer Less Than or Equal to 2 cm After Breast-Conserving Surgery

BACKGROUND

Molecular subtype predicts the prognosis of early-stage breast cancer patients. We assessed the long-term outcomes of breast cancer ≤2 cm treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and stratified according to an immunohistochemically (IHC)-based subtype definition.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted from a prospectively collected database. Included patients had pT1, any N, M0 breast cancer after BCS (without anti-HER2 therapy) and available information on estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), HER2 status, Ki-67 index. Five IHC-defined subtypes were identified: luminal A-like (ER and/or PR-positive/HER2-negative/Ki-67 < 20%), luminal B-like/HER2-negative (ER and/or PR-positive/HER2-negative/Ki-67 ≥ 20%), luminal B-like/HER2-positive (ER and/or PR-positive/HER2-positive/any Ki-67 value), HER2-positive/nonluminal (ER and PR-negative/HER2-positive), and triple-negative (ER and PR-negative/HER2-negative).

RESULTS

We analyzed 184 (65%) luminal A-like, 57 (20%) luminal B-like/HER2-negative, 17 (6%) luminal B-like/HER2-positive, 6 (2%) HER2-positive/nonluminal, and 18 (7%) triple-negative patients. Median follow-up was 112 (interquartile range 94-125) mo. The cumulative 5- and 10-y local recurrence (LR) rates were 1.5% and 4%, respectively. The cumulative 5- and 10-y distant recurrence (DR) rates were 3% and 8%, respectively. The Cox regression revealed that HER2-positive/nonluminal subtypes had the highest risk of LR (P = 0.0025). The luminal B-like/HER2-positive subtypes had the highest risk of DR (P = 0.0019). HER2 positivity carried a higher risk of DR in women with luminal breast cancer who completed 5 y of adjuvant hormonal therapy (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The IHC-defined subtype impacts on the prognosis of breast cancer ≤2 cm after BCS, determining significant differences in LR and DR rates. In the pre-"anti-HER2 therapy" era, patients with HER2-positive/nonluminal or luminal B-like/HER2-positive subtype had worse long-term outcomes than those with luminal A-like subtype.

Surgical Management of Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Therapy

Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) allows downstaging in some cases of breast cancer. By consequence, it may enable a more conservative surgical approach or make surgery possible in cases ineligible for surgery before NAT. In this article, we review the evidence and management recommendations for optimal surgical treatment in this setting.

Intraoperative Margin Management in Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Breast surgeons have a wide variety of intraoperative techniques available to help achieve low rates for positive margins of excision, with variable levels of evidence.

METHODS

A systematic review of the medical literature from 1995 to July 2016 was conducted, with 434 abstracts identified and evaluated. The analysis included 106 papers focused on intraoperative management of breast cancer margins and contained actionable data.

RESULTS

Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy for palpable tumors, as an alternative to palpation guidance, can lower positive margin rates, but the effect when used as an alternative to wire localization (WL) for nonpalpable tumors is less certain. Localization techniques such as radioactive seed localization and radioguided occult lesion localization were found potentially to lower positive margin rates as alternatives to WL depending on baseline positive margin rates. Intraoperative pathologic methods including gross histology, frozen section analysis, and imprint cytology all have the potential to lower the rates of positive margins. Cavity-shave margins and the Marginprobe device both lower rates of positive margins, with some potential for negative cosmetic effects. Specimen radiography and multiple miscellaneous techniques did not affect positive margin rates or provided too little evidence for formation of a conclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic review of the literature showed evidence that several intraoperative techniques and actions can lower the rates of positive margins. These results are presented together with graded recommendations.

Cavity Shaving plus Lumpectomy versus Lumpectomy Alone for Patients with Breast Cancer Undergoing Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The margin status is a well-established prognostic predictor for patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Recent data suggested that cavity shaving in addition to lumpectomy might be a promising approach for improving the clinical outcomes. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety between cavity shaving plus lumpectomy and lumpectomy alone with a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases for studies comparing cavity shaving with lumpectomy before June 10, 2016. Both comparative studies and self-control studies were included. A random-effects model was used to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) for positive margin rate, reoperation rate, recurrence rate, and weighted mean difference (WMD) for excised tissue volume. Twenty-six studies were included in the meta-analysis. The cavity shaving group had a significantly lower positive margin rate than the BCS-alone group (16.4% vs. 31.9%; OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.32-0.53, P < 0.05). Cavity shaving was associated with a significantly decreased rate of reoperation (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.30-0.59, P < 0.05). The overall locoregional rate was low for cavity shaving and BCS-alone (3% vs. 4%). Cavity shaving had no significant effect on the risk of locoregional recurrence (OR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.32-2.35; P = 0.78). The excised tissue volume did not differ substantially between cavity shaving and BCS alone (WMD = -23.88, 95% CI -55.20 to 7.44, P = 0.14). For patients undergoing BCS, additional cavity shaving was an effective method to decrease the positive margin rate and avoid reoperation. The addition of cavity shaving did not appear to have excessive excised tissue volume compared with partial mastectomy alone.